-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement the Re-rebalance coherence RFC #56145
Conversation
r? @varkor (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't checked over the tests yet, but the code looks good. I'll try to look at the tests soon.
src/doc/unstable-book/src/language-features/re-rebalance-coherence.md
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
impls are allowed in crates. | ||
The following rule is used: | ||
|
||
Given `impl<P1..=Pn> Trait<T1..=Tn> for T0`, an impl is valid only if at |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this "if and only if"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's directly copied from the RFC. I think it should be "if and only if" but's not written there. (cc @sgrif who has written that thing)
@varkor I've addressed your review comments. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Sorry about the delay @weiznich. I'll get to this soon. |
6361b15
to
07328d5
Compare
@varkor I've rebased the PR. |
src/libsyntax/feature_gate.rs
Outdated
@@ -393,6 +393,9 @@ declare_features! ( | |||
// `extern` in paths | |||
(active, extern_in_paths, "1.23.0", Some(55600), None), | |||
|
|||
// Use `?` as the Kleene "at most one" operator |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You seem to have accidentally pulled in some extra changes with the rebase.
At the moment, the fact that all the coherence tests have been duplicated under the new feature flag seems a little excessive. I'm not quite sure what the correct approach here is though: we do want to make sure we don't break anything. I wonder if it would be appropriate to run the tests in two modes, a bit like NLL does at the moment. Alternatively, we could have a few tests that cover a representative sample of existing cases, under the assumption that the algorithm is mostly the same anyway and when stabilised, the existing tests are going to come into effect anyway. Could you point out which tests are new (and demonstrate the new behaviour), so I can check those in particular? I think @nikomatsakis will have better ideas about the right solution re. tests, so I'm going to reassign. The actual change looks good to me, though (once the rebase issues are fixed). |
This one and this one is new. All other tests are just a copied version of the old coherence tests with the
I'm not sure what would be a representative sample of the existing test cases here, nor I'm knowing what needs to be changed to run the existing tests using two modes. Would be great to get some more input here. |
06c2a37
to
8a97a74
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
8a97a74
to
852e95d
Compare
I'm not sure why those 2 tests fail. The corresponding |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@varkor @nikomatsakis Any news here? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems great! I would like before r+'ing though to spend a bit more time checking over the tests.
struct Oracle; | ||
impl Backend for Oracle {} | ||
impl<'a, T:'a, Tab> QueryFragment<Oracle> for BatchInsert<'a, T, Tab> {} | ||
// ~^ ERROR E0210 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This comment needs to be //~^
-- no space
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
be925ae
to
cf2f834
Compare
@nikomatsakis Tests are fixed. |
I forgot about this question that @varkor raised:
One option here is to rewrite the duplicated tests using
This will cause the same test to be built twice, once with You can then do things like: #![cfg_attr(new, feature(new_algorithm))] @weiznich -- do you want to take a shot at collapsing the tests this way? |
@nikomatsakis I will try that. What's the right strategy here? In that case there are already revisions. |
|
||
#![feature(re_rebalance_coherence)] | ||
|
||
// revisions: a b c |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, in this case you would have to add another set of three revisions, I suppose. e.g., a, re_a, b, re_b, c, re_c
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #55517) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
This copies and adjusts the existing coherence tests to ensure that they continue to work using the new implementation.
…ence.md Co-Authored-By: weiznich <[email protected]>
Implement compile tests as variants of existing tests
32118a9
to
d758e4d
Compare
@bors r=nikomatsakis |
📌 Commit d758e4d has been approved by |
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This is the first time I touch anything in the compiler so just tell me if I got something wrong.
Big thanks to @sgrif for the pointers where to look for those things.
cc #55437